'WPNO.i2§.§f¢fi
IN THE man Comm' 012* KAIHUATAKA AT 2 "
DATED THIS THE 221*» DAY olr-=JA:zug\_§§Y
BEFORE _ 'H V'
nu uoarnns on.
wan' PETITION no. 12§3$]f2o6aA{G§a-4'cpc)
BETWEEN M 5 _ " .
SriNAdiMurthy,
S/0 .
Ase» eoym, % %
Retd.TeacImr, _ A
R/0 5, '
Naaappafiiock "$2 "
(By Sri mm, for petifioner)
ARIN" :
WQA ma,
"9 V
"""E'r--9 MOP"? :
.1 -. _Maj(.=r,A
V , V _ Respondent
WP NOJ2635/20%
This\VritPetttionhfiIedundcrArticlcs 226&227ofthc
Constitution of India, praying to quash the order
passed by the civilaudge (Jr. om), Pavaiaga, in Case
No.68] 1998 on LA-I danzd 12.7.2007 vile A’
This Petition coming’ on for otdeq this 7 e
the following:
The petitioner/.J.I>i.~ ‘rits;’68} 1993 on the
file of Civil Judge (Jr. before this Court,
praying for made on LA-I filed
in the ‘
leading to the filing of the
Petition
filed a suit in O S No.47/1991 against the
The suit came to be deemed on 27.7.1992. In
My _ dccrcc Inadcinfavourofthcrcspondcnt, she hm
sum of Rs.19,250/- as arltafs of monthly mam’ tenancc
of Rs.350[- p.m., from 6.11.1993. She has also claimed
of execution’ amounting to Rs.262]-, thus in all
A ‘ “Vclaimcd a sum of Rs.19,512/- from the pciitioncr by filing
R/*
WPNO.l2635i2008
Execution Petition in No.68[1998. The petitioner[J.Dr.,
applica*5mn dated 12.8.1999 under Order XX} r/W ”
151 of C P C praying to dismiss the Execution L” K
‘ Kmund that she is not entitled to enferec of°tA1it:~ ‘V
subsequent events. The decree fibd The
Execufieg Court, after hearing order
dated 12.7.2007, Icjflcted the the ease for
steps on 22.9.2007.
3. Learned submits that the
respondent birth to a child on
4.6.1997 in fiospiml at Bangalore and
therefore see is’ Li’mt ‘ fie Execution Petition. The
of maintenance from 6.11.1993.
As datevef execution on 20.7.1998 she has claimed
from 6.11.1993 in all amousafing to
..v:’_?’3?.$.-44il’E?.,_.25{}[ .. petitioner has not produced any record to
5 the respondent u:–married and if so, on which date ‘P
for the sake of argument, if it is taken that the
H V — ..zeepeiident has given birth to a chiki on 4.6.1997, it may not be a
u ground to reject’ the entire Execution Petition c1aunm’ ‘ g arrears
xK_/
WPNO.l2635!20fl
of maéntenancc from 6.11.1993. I we no ificgality or in
the impugned order.
4. In the result, the Petition fimby
d:sm1s’ ‘ set! with liberty to the petitioner ‘~
of mam’ tenamewd eontcst the i’c -vmanxag’ e
bythcmc$o’ ndant. T L. v ‘
Bjs